EneT wrote:

Oh Mah Gaushjbfdgzgfd. I said it before... I don't disagree with your argument nor do I agree with it. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON IN YOUR HEAD!!!

Then why are you replying to me in such manner before? Is it because of my words? or because my explanation is so bad?

At least you don't deny it

Green Platinum wrote:

You far exaggerate the extent of what genetics can do deadbill. Genetics doesn't have any influence of whether you share sex toys and have unprotected sex. If you really believe what you are saying siblings of homosexuals would have a high case of contracting HIV and considering the population size of homosexuals there would be more straight people with HIV just from siblings alone.

I understand your point. And please dont call me an idiot, as I am trying to be polite as I could.
There are still a debate in scientific means on psychological traits due to genetic, as I said before, you can always rely on science if you want to show your disagreement

This doesn't even cover the original issue of why gays are a threat to natural selection by passing on their "Inferior genes" when homosexuals are definitely not birthing the most children.

deadbill wrote:

EneT wrote:

Oh Mah Gaushjbfdgzgfd. I said it before... I don't disagree with your argument nor do I agree with it. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON IN YOUR HEAD!!!

Then why are you replying to me in such manner before? Is it because of my words? or because my explanation is so bad?

Both and so much more. You keep telling us to go back to the 'proof' that you provided but you haven't explained the most important part to an argument; your train of thought. Yet you just don't understand, I keep telling you yet you can't seem to get the picture and yet you still keep telling us to go back to the 'proof' when I've already that shit TWICE. You seem to think that by reading all those resources that everyone will understand what you have in your head like we're some sort of mind-readers. Your argument comes off as illogical and something a retard would come up with, which is what you seem to be right now. You literally haven't done anything noteworthy that has made me think otherwise.

deadbill wrote:

I understand your point. And please dont call me an idiot, as I am trying to be polite as I could.
There are still a debate in scientific means on psychological traits due to genetic, as I said before, you can always rely on science if you want to show your disagreement

You can't rely on science when you conjure up retarded assumptions. YAYYYYYYY!!!

deadbill wrote:

Green Platinum wrote:

You far exaggerate the extent of what genetics can do deadbill. Genetics doesn't have any influence of whether you share sex toys and have unprotected sex. If you really believe what you are saying siblings of homosexuals would have a high case of contracting HIV and considering the population size of homosexuals there would be more straight people with HIV just from siblings alone.

I understand your point. And please dont call me an idiot, as I am trying to be polite as I could.
There are still a debate in scientific means on psychological traits due to genetic, as I said before, you can always rely on science if you want to show your disagreement

I'm fine to use science when you stop misrepresenting what the facts say. Just because genes exist doesn't mean they are the reason for all the differences between populations.

zzz

Green Platinum wrote:

[
I'm fine to use science when you stop misrepresenting what the facts say. Just because genes exist doesn't mean they are the reason for all the differences between populations.

Evolution basic concept.. please do some research, I think that is a common knowledge.
And please do use the science.

By any chance Deadbill, are you a Nazi? Just wondering, you know I'm pretty cynical when it comes to human life. I believe that majority of people in existence should die, especially fat fuckers and make way for the strong. But all those views are only ideals, you really come off as a Nazi when you say talk shit about genetics and how certain groups are 'threats'.

Also you should just stop arguing. You don't seem to understand what we're saying, the reply you just gave to Green Platinum was completely off the mark, seriously wtf.

EneT wrote:

By any chance Deadbill, are you a Nazi? Just wondering, you know I'm pretty cynical when it comes to human life. I believe that majority of people in existence should die, especially fat fuckers and make way for the strong. But all those views are only ideals, you really come off as a Nazi when you say talk shit about genetics and how certain groups are 'threats'.

Also you should just stop arguing. You don't seem to understand what we're saying, the reply you just gave to Green Platinum was completely off the mark, seriously wtf.

he's not a nazi he's obviously

deadbill wrote:

Green Platinum wrote:

I'm fine to use science when you stop misrepresenting what the facts say. Just because genes exist doesn't mean they are the reason for all the differences between populations.

Evolution basic concept.. please do some research, I think that is a common knowledge.
And please do use the science.

You will find essentially the same genetic diversity in straight and gay populations, the enviromental factors like coming into contact with HIV is a bigger factor in the transmission of HIV.
I look forward to when you try to explain poor people as lacking affluence genes.

Aomi wrote:

EneT wrote:

By any chance Deadbill, are you a Nazi? Just wondering, you know I'm pretty cynical when it comes to human life. I believe that majority of people in existence should die, especially fat fuckers and make way for the strong. But all those views are only ideals, you really come off as a Nazi when you say talk shit about genetics and how certain groups are 'threats'.

Also you should just stop arguing. You don't seem to understand what we're saying, the reply you just gave to Green Platinum was completely off the mark, seriously wtf.

he's not a nazi he's obviously

So.. It seems you are taken interest to me instead.

I am someone who is trying to see facts and truth for the benefit of humanity.
I do hate human because I love them so much.
I hate them because they do something inefficient, something that should not be done, in order to reach benefit as a part of nature.
I know I am the worst, I am a trash to most people, I realized that. Even though, I am searching for ways to make thing better.

@GreenPlatinum,
I will try to explain it to you.

All of my arguments are coming from this:
I do have believe as Sigmund Freud that a psychology of an individual are mainly influenced by how hormones work in its brain.
As the characteristic of an individual, brain and hormonal traits, can be inherited. Therefore, as a the psychological condition, homosexuality tendency of parents can be passed into their child.

However.
If you think that genes are not the cause of psychological traits, please understand this very basic concept of human mind.

Human mind is divided into three parts, which are ego, superego, and id.
Id is the instinctive part, a newborn child only have this. The Id contain desire of sex and other instinctive behavior

As the child grows up, ego and superego are developed.
Ego is the direct influences of external world, in this case a newborn child is mostly influenced by the parents trait. As the parents who raise the child.
The last is superego, or moral, or sense of judgement. The superego is very influenced by the ego which mainly influenced by parents.
The function of superego is to control the Id.

In a person who have homosexuality traits, their superego act differently than majority as they cannot control their Id accordingly as as the majority.
The homosexuality act of a child, nevertheless influenced mostly by parents.

As the homosexuality lifestyle is very vulnerable to HIV, homosexual parents do have a higher chance to pass HIV to the child whether directly or not.
Direct means by procreation through procreation, or indirect by raising another individual who have a tendency of homosexuality which can lead into HIV spreads.

In other words, whether genetically or not, parents who have homosexuality disorder give a tendency to pass the traits to the child. And whether directly or not, the parent's HIV tendency due to homosexuality (statistically means, according to HIV ratio) can be passed to the child

And yes, mainly it is still a mystery on how evolution works on a population. As I said before, you can always do some research, scientifically, in order to argue my argument. And I hope we can do this discussion without insults or any unnecessary bad manner.

Now THAT is what I wanted to see. Now I see your train of thought, wasn't that a lot easier?

EneT wrote:

Now THAT is what I wanted to see. Now I see your train of thought, wasn't that a lot easier?

It is easier if you told me directly with a good manner from the very beginning.
I hope we can continue this discussion politely.

... I've told you countless times but whatever.

EneT wrote:

... I've told you countless times but whatever.

ah.. my bad then. Please accept my sincere apologies

Can I see a study that links children raised by gay parents are significantly more likely to catch HIV?

Your position seems to put the blame on parents more than homosexuality.

Hasn't Freud's theories largely been discredited too? Like everyone having an Oedipus complex etc.

Green Platinum wrote:

Can I see a study that links children raised by gay parents are significantly more likely to catch HIV?

Your position seems to put the blame on parents more than homosexuality.

Hasn't Freud's theories largely been discredited too? Like everyone having an Oedipus complex etc.

I think this would help.
http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/homosexual-parenting-is-it-time-for-change

Yes, the parents who have homosexuality is on the blame.

Of course, and that is why I provide alternative way of thought in my previous comment. Just in case if Sigmund's theory is not enough.

deadbill wrote:

Green Platinum wrote:

Can I see a study that links children raised by gay parents are significantly more likely to catch HIV?

I think this would help.
http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/homosexual-parenting-is-it-time-for-change

Nothing about children and HIV

Only this "This research has revealed that children reared in same-sex households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a same-sex identity."

I'm finding plenty of other studies that result in no statistical significant differences.

Your source looks to be incredibly conservative and biased too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... iatricians

Green Platinum wrote:

Only this "This research has revealed that children reared in same-sex households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a same-sex identity."

I'm finding plenty of other studies that result in no statistical significant differences.

Well, in any sense if you want to get the statistical data, you have to get it legally through the department which work on it.
And I cant provide you with resource material that protected by copyright.

If you by any chance found the statistical result, I would be happy if you want to share it with me

I love the harsh discussion here
Good thing surveys are in OT XD
As there were too many posts too read properly, this might be said before
Homosexuality is determined by genes. Nothing else
HIV is NOT related by genes. It's a disease you get when having unprotected sex
These 2 are thus not related

My english teacher once told me this
The reason why many homosexual men have HIV is because they hae anal sex. The butt isn't mafe for this and can 'break' easily and blood
Then the virus can easily spread

Do you see anything about genes in that part?
No

Oh, I have never seen such a sharp discussion since ever O.o

This seems to be the biggest review I can find.
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topi ... n-parents/

77 studies.
Only 4 concluded that children are worse off with same-sex parents.

Baraatje123 wrote:

I love the harsh discussion here
Good thing surveys are in OT XD
As there were too many posts too read properly, this might be said before
Homosexuality is determined by genes. Nothing else
HIV is NOT related by genes. It's a disease you get when having unprotected sex
These 2 are thus not related

My english teacher once told me this
The reason why many homosexual men have HIV is because they hae anal sex. The butt isn't mafe for this and can 'break' easily and blood
Then the virus can easily spread

Do you see anything about genes in that part?
No

Oh, I have never seen such a sharp discussion since ever O.o

deadbill wrote:

I will try to explain it to you.

All of my arguments are coming from this:
I do have believe as Sigmund Freud that a psychology of an individual are mainly influenced by how hormones work in its brain.
As the characteristic of an individual, brain and hormonal traits, can be inherited. Therefore, as a the psychological condition, homosexuality tendency of parents can be passed into their child.

However.
If you think that genes are not the cause of psychological traits, please understand this very basic concept of human mind.

Human mind is divided into three parts, which are ego, superego, and id.
Id is the instinctive part, a newborn child only have this. The Id contain desire of sex and other instinctive behavior

As the child grows up, ego and superego are developed.
Ego is the direct influences of external world, in this case a newborn child is mostly influenced by the parents trait. As the parents who raise the child.
The last is superego, or moral, or sense of judgement. The superego is very influenced by the ego which mainly influenced by parents.
The function of superego is to control the Id.

In a person who have homosexuality traits, their superego act differently than majority as they cannot control their Id accordingly as as the majority.
The homosexuality act of a child, nevertheless influenced mostly by parents.

As the homosexuality lifestyle is very vulnerable to HIV, homosexual parents do have a higher chance to pass HIV to the child whether directly or not.
Direct means by procreation through procreation, or indirect by raising another individual who have a tendency of homosexuality which can lead into HIV spreads.

In other words, whether genetically or not, parents who have homosexuality disorder give a tendency to pass the traits to the child. And whether directly or not, the parent's HIV tendency due to homosexuality (statistically means, according to HIV ratio) can be passed to the child

And yes, mainly it is still a mystery on how evolution works on a population. As I said before, you can always do some research, scientifically, in order to argue my argument. And I hope we can do this discussion without insults or any unnecessary bad manner.

I hope my explanation was clear, please do ask me if you want some further explanation.

Green Platinum wrote:

This seems to be the biggest review I can find.
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topi ... n-parents/

77 studies.
Only 4 concluded that children are worse off with same-sex parents.

Thank you for sharing

I thought science doesn't say "disorder" anymore

Imo this isn't even close to a disorder
Homosexuals are prevented in doing things
People with ADHD, Autism, Down etc. do, which is why that's called a disorder
Or at least that's how I see it

Nwolf wrote:

I thought science doesn't say "disorder" anymore

It was only changed due to social pressures.

Deadbill your argument falls flat because a few things...

1. Psychological disorders are for the most part learned (or in some cases not learned) behaviour and/or defense mechanisms. If you bully someone untill they are a paranoid nervewreck, did you change their genes? I think not! As such these disorders can not be inherited.
Furthermore, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder, its a neurological anomaly caused by, as studies etablished (1), by hormone fluctations during develovement in the womb.

2. HIV is a virus, not a gene. Almost all the risk for contracting HIV comes from your lifestyle. Now, while yes, a gay person who literally fucks around is at a higher risk than a straight person who fucks around, but only because HIV is already so widespread among gays. A gay person who does not fuck around is at a lower risk than a straight person who does. Blame sluts and inconsiderate people, not gay people.
HIV is so widespread among gays because said sluts and inconsiderate people deem the condom uneccesary since theres no risk of pregnancy in man on man sex. Which is fucking stupid because that opens gate and door for all sorts of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

Lastly, altough neither a argument nor a dispute to any arguments, please fucking dont link to google (and if you really must atleast use the proper search for such stuff) when citing sources, link directly to the study you're citing.

This is the most interesting thread I've come across so far.
Sadly, I have nothing to contribute with, but I look forward to new posts, if anything.

Granger wrote:

Deadbill your argument falls flat because a few things...

1. Psychological disorders are for the most part learned (or in some cases not learned) behaviour and/or defense mechanisms. If you bully someone untill they are a paranoid nervewreck, did you change their genes? I think not! As such these disorders can not be inherited.

deadbill wrote:

If you think that genes are not the cause of psychological traits, please understand this very basic concept of human mind.

Human mind is divided into three parts, which are ego, superego, and id.
Id is the instinctive part, a newborn child only have this. The Id contain desire of sex and other instinctive behavior

As the child grows up, ego and superego are developed.
Ego is the direct influences of external world, in this case a newborn child is mostly influenced by the parents trait. As the parents who raise the child.
The last is superego, or moral, or sense of judgement. The superego is very influenced by the ego which mainly influenced by parents.
The function of superego is to control the Id.

In a person who have homosexuality traits, their superego act differently than majority as they cannot control their Id accordingly as as the majority.
The homosexuality act of a child, nevertheless influenced mostly by parents.

Granger wrote:

Furthermore, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder, its a neurological anomaly caused by, as studies etablished (1), by hormone fluctations during develovement in the womb.

deadbill wrote:

All of my arguments are coming from this:
I do have believe as Sigmund Freud that a psychology of an individual are mainly influenced by how hormones work in its brain.
As the characteristic of an individual, brain and hormonal traits, can be inherited. Therefore, as a the psychological condition, homosexuality tendency of parents can be passed into their child.

Yes, I do believe it is a neurological anomaly. That is why there is a chance that homosexuality can be passed through genes, as brain and hormonal traits can be passed through genes.

2. HIV is a virus, not a gene. Almost all the risk for contracting HIV comes from your lifestyle. Now, while yes, a gay person who literally fucks around is at a higher risk than a straight person who fucks around, but only because HIV is already so widespread among gays. A gay person who does not fuck around is at a lower risk than a straight person who does. Blame sluts and inconsiderate people, not gay people.
HIV is so widespread among gays because said sluts and inconsiderate people deem the condom uneccesary since theres no risk of pregnancy in man on man sex. Which is fucking stupid because that opens gate and door for all sorts of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

deadbill wrote:

As the homosexuality lifestyle is very vulnerable to HIV, homosexual parents do have a higher chance to pass HIV to the child whether directly or not.
Direct means by procreation through procreation, or indirect by raising another individual who have a tendency of homosexuality which can lead into HIV spreads.

In other words, whether genetically or not, parents who have homosexuality disorder give a tendency to pass the traits to the child. And whether directly or not, the parent's HIV tendency due to homosexuality (statistically means, according to HIV ratio) can be passed to the child

Lastly, altough neither a argument nor a dispute to any arguments, please fucking dont link to google (and if you really must atleast use the proper search for such stuff) when citing sources, link directly to the study you're citing "

So does this apply to everyone? at least I provided my arguments with the link (which is a download link to the paper, and people can access it freely).
However, If you want to apply such rule, then please provide all of your previous arguments with proper citing.

A homosexual lifestyle is vulnerable to HIV, therefore homosexuals are a threat to natural selection?

Do you want to ban every lifestyle choice that makes you vulnerable to something bad for you?

I'm just sitting here in my observation desk, carry on.

Green Platinum wrote:

A homosexual lifestyle is vulnerable to HIV, therefore homosexuals are a threat to natural selection?

Do you want to ban every lifestyle choice that makes you vulnerable to something bad for you?

A homosexual lifestyle is vulnerable to HIV and lack of natural way of procreation, as I have explained it before.
Therefore homosexuality is a threat to human, as a species.

First thing first,
What do you live for? I do not think that people's life is just to fulfill their desire.
As humans who have logic, we should wisely choose the better for our life.

What, are we back to the pre-historic ages?
We've reached the point in which subjects such as those have little matter. The world is already over-populated as it is, homosexuality is far from being a threat. Or are you suggesting that these so called 'Homo Genes' will eventually be passed on throughout all humans?

What's wrong with living to enjoy life? Not everybody wants kids.

Green Platinum wrote:

What's wrong with living to enjoy life? Not everybody wants kids.

It is right to not using all of your potential and living like an inferior species?

We can assume that a domestic dog is living only to enjoy its life, since its don't have logic to think wisely.
And a dog (my dog at least) does not even know when to stop eating! It is just fulfilling its hunger!

Do you really want to live just to pursue your desire? Even though you have a potential to make things better as a superior being?
Think as a species, not as an individual.. If everyone is just only following their desire, this world will be even more chaotic.

EneT wrote:

What, are we back to the pre-historic ages?
We've reached the point in which subjects such as those have little matter. The world is already over-populated as it is, homosexuality is far from being a threat. Or are you suggesting that these so called 'Homo Genes' will eventually be passed on throughout all humans?

Why do you hate me so much, why u don't even read my previous post, even a psychopath like me can cry ;w;

err...

"We've reached the point in which subjects such as those have little matter."
^explain this , as I know, natural selection occurs as long as living creature exist

" The world is already over-populated as it is, homosexuality is far from being a threat."
^and this, please explain why and please explain your train of thought

There's 7 billion+ people in the world, only a small population are homosexual. How are they going to affect all 7 billion?
Way back when the human population was way lower it could have been considered a 'threat', but as we are now, homo-sexuality isn't an issue. Actually, even back then it wasn't an issue. Even if it was taboo, many leaders and iconical figures in history were gay. Take example the Spartans, they would throw away all their babies that had physical defects so that only the strong would live in their ranks, but guess what? When a male Spartan child gets old enough they get a sort of personal teacher that acts as a father for them, most of them had sexual relationships with each other. But was that a threat for them? No.

Also, stop throwing the 'natural selection' card as if it's proven. Nothing in science is proven, tests are made and theories are created that could best accurately depict the results to our understanding. That's the basic concept all scientists should know. No scientists can prove the Big Bang actually occurred, they can only assume, no scientists can prove Darwin's theory is correct. Science is built around theories and theories can never be proven, everything we know, from atoms, quasars to galaxies is ultimately a creation of humanity's imagination. Can you explain force? What it actually is; can you explain energy? No one can truly explain anything in science as science is all theory. THEORY.

You know what a theory is right? It's an idea that is created to give a better understanding of something. But theories are only 'ideas'. They are created by humans and can never be truly proven because as a race we are imperfect, and we always will be. Ultimately we can never prove what we know because it takes a higher being than humans to correct us. Take a child for example, when they do something wrong, who is the one that corrects them? Someone higher, an Adult. Which leads me back to the belief of God. You'd be surprised to know that the majority of scientists are believers of God even though science and religion have always butted heads since the creation of science. Albert Einstein is a brilliant example, and the reason they believe in God is because they know, they know that science can only be ultimately proven by a being higher than us. I'm not religious myself, I'm more inclined towards science, but having the same mindset as Einstein is what makes me hold onto the belief in God.

Before Deadbill misunderstands natural selection is an observation to what drives evolutionary processes, there is no reason for it to be enforced by civilisation.

EneT wrote:

There's 7 billion+ people in the world, only a small population are homosexual. How are they going to affect all 7 billion?
Way back when the human population was way lower it could have been considered a 'threat', but as we are now, homo-sexuality isn't an issue. Actually, even back then it wasn't an issue. Even if it was taboo, many leaders and iconical figures in history were gay. Take example the Spartans, they would throw away all their babies that had physical defects so that only the strong would live in their ranks, but guess what? When a male Spartan child gets old enough they get a sort of personal teacher that acts as a father for them, most of them had sexual relationships with each other. But was that a threat for them? No.

Also, stop throwing the 'natural selection' card as if it's proven. Nothing in science is proven, tests are made and theories are created that could best accurately depict the results to our understanding. That's the basic concept all scientists should know. No scientists can prove the Big Bang actually occurred, they can only assume, no scientists can prove Darwin's theory is correct. Science is built around theories and theories can never be proven, everything we know, from atoms, quasars to galaxies is ultimately creation of humanity's imagination.

So... do you want to live as a spartan?
sure lets kill your baby that had physical defect and have sexual relationships with the strong one!

You should not make the Spartan as example like that. Because in any means you just implying that they were not only practicing homosexuality but also pedophilia plus incest, and they are all right

You have a point there.
And yes we should think objectively in scientific manner.
Therefore, you do not have a right to imply me as an incompetent human being just because I have a different theory.
So what do you think in a scientific manner?

Green Platinum wrote:

Before Deadbill misunderstands natural selection is an observation to what drives evolutionary processes, there is no reason for it to be enforced by civilisation.

Yep. You got the point.

Yours is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. It is not directly backed up by results. You merely connected two things together to create a hypothesis.

Look at science in an objective manner? Science has always been far from objective; science is subjective as can be. I can thrash on your 'theory' all I want, but the thing is, it isn't even a theory...

The Spartans are a brilliant example, what are you talking about? They're the best of example of human civilization that actively practiced natural selection aside from the Nazis. Despite the natural selection they still took part in homo-sexual acts but they thrived as one of the most threatening forces of their time. Were they at threat from homos? No.

EneT wrote:

Yours is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. It is not directly backed up by results. You merely connected two things together to create a hypothesis.

Look at science in an objective manner? Science has always been far from objective; science is subjective as can be. I can thrash on your 'theory' all I want, but the thing is, it isn't even a theory...

whoops my English sucks
What I meant is I am using a different theory than yours.

So, rhetorically aside. Give me yours. Lets compare it

deadbill wrote:

Green Platinum wrote:

Before Deadbill misunderstands natural selection is an observation to what drives evolutionary processes, there is no reason for it to be enforced by civilisation.

Yep. You got the point.

Yet you back up you proposal by saying it is against natural selection?

EneT wrote:

Yours is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. It is not directly backed up by results. You merely connected two things together to create a hypothesis.

Look at science in an objective manner? Science has always been far from objective; science is subjective as can be. I can thrash on your 'theory' all I want, but the thing is, it isn't even a theory...

Your statement is problematic. Scientific methodology strives to remove bias and alternate interpretations through experimentation. Saying it is subjective as can be is untrue at least in terms the natural sciences. Psychology on the other hand is not so much.

Green Platinum wrote:

Yet you back up you proposal by saying it is against natural selection?

No, no, I mean that you got the point that I will misunderstand natural selection

Okay first of all, your 'idea', is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. You have no scientific results that directly correlate people with these so called 'Homo genes' causing a spread of HIV.
A theory is an idea that is directly backed up by tests and results; a hypothesis is an idea that you just create in your mind without being directly backed up by tests and results. Your idea is hypothesis, you created it in your mind by putting together two pieces of information. Okay? You understand?

Now, I don't even think you understand what we're saying and what position you're in. Ever watched dragons den? Know how an inventor pitches their idea to a rich businessman?
Look at this way, you're the inventor, we're the businessmen. We aren't the ones that have to prove anything, what do we have to prove? Did we create an 'idea'? No. None of us created an 'idea' in the first place, what we're doing is de-bunking yours.
You're the one with the 'idea', you're the one with something to prove. If you still don't understand what I'm saying then I plead you, I absolutely plead you to take up more English lessons. Please.

EneT wrote:

Okay first of all, your 'idea', is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. You have no scientific results that directly correlate people with these so called 'Homo genes' causing a spread of HIV.
A theory is an idea that is directly backed up by tests and results; a hypothesis is an idea that you just create in your mind without being directly backed up by tests and results. Your idea is hypothesis, you created it in your mind by putting together two pieces of information. Okay? You understand?

Now, I don't even think you understand what we're saying and what position you're in. Ever watched dragons den? Know how an inventor pitches their idea to a rich businessman?
Look at this way, you're the inventor, we're the businessmen. We aren't the ones that have to prove anything, what do we have to prove? Did we create an 'idea'? No. None of us created an 'idea' in the first place, what we're doing is de-bunking yours.
You're the one with the 'idea', you're the one with something to prove. If you still don't understand what I'm saying then I plead you, I absolutely plead you to take up more English lessons. Please.

ugh didnt I said that my English sucks? should I edit my post?

mhm. ok. understand. okay. ooh yeah sure. gine. okay.
I will take an another English lesson.

Thank you so much

Come back after a couple of years.

EneT wrote:

Come back after a couple of years.

Sure do

Your English doesn't suck
It's better then most of the community actually
So don't use that to cover up your mistakes

If heterosexuals would just fuck around unprotected, in no time, the majority will have HIV, it's how it works
It's NOT related to Homosexuality, it's based on sexual preferences (as in safe or unsafe)
The fact that homosexuals have 'more' HIV may or may not be linked to this
I can't recall there ever being a report on that Homosexuals have sex w/o condom more then heterosexuals, or vice versa
If there is, please link that

heya guys ! im back after a couple of years!

and you know what? LGBT is a mental disease.

Or at least, LGBT people are prone to mental disease.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself then

deadbill wrote:

heya guys ! im back after a couple of years!

and you know what? LGBT is a mental disease.

Or at least, LGBT people are prone to mental disease.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself then

The fuck are you talking about?

deadbill wrote:

heya guys ! im back after a couple of years!

and you know what? LGBT is a mental disease.

Or at least, LGBT people are prone to mental disease.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself then

so are people who don't know what a mental disease